Life in a small town, Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

Health and Drugs … The Latest Developments Here …

Hello everybody … again. After several days of heavy snow it is now -28 C and with a steady wind putting it at -42 C with the windchill. All the shoveling and driving is done for the day so everything is put away and plugged in and so on. Now we can now hunker down drinking hot drinks and sitting in the sauna and writing emails and such.

Thanks for looking at this note … this one is shorter than some, with only one medical related link.

My point in this note is to reflect on the trustworthiness, integrity and reliability of the MSM, government sources, and even major Medical Journals as information sources when it comes to making up our own minds about the efficacy of treatments for conditions with which we are diagnosed.

My first wife of forty years and I have been digging into this deeply since early 2008 when we first started playing in the sunny fields of being in business in the health care domain. Things have changed for us most dramatically since we were virgin believers in the integrity of our health systems and in the concept of government regulated drug manufacturing.

These days it is looking more like Drug Manufacturer regulated government. For example, back in 2008 we quickly became subscribers to one medical information service then known as the Cochran Group, or The Cochrane collaboration (several years before they started their sad slide to bias and corruption) and we looked at the reliability and safety issue studies related to the efficacy of Statin drugs for cholesterol management) – The Cochran Group looked at all this way back in 2003. Having those sources early on, we were able to look at some data and meta-studies which were not censored by big brother.

Unfortunately the Cochran collaboration has become the paid lapdog for some major drug companies and one can correlate that change to the tenor of the reviews and meta-studies. It really is a clear binary choice … 1. Either the drug industry and healthcare have changed from the “studying patients for profit while suppressing all information” model over to the MSM view of a completely safe patient centered system. or … 2. the whistle blowers and independent reviewers at the Cochran collaboration have been themselves suppressed and bought. Which is more likely? That’s a serious question because it really is a matter of life and death… for us.

Now, that Elysian 2008 Landscape, of sunny meadows and flowers and sparkling brooks with deer and rabbits gently grazing under a lucent sky, has transformed into a post apocalyptic dystopean vision much more reminiscent of the setting of Harrison Ford’s “Blade Runner back in 1982.

We have watched one information source after another taken down by government and Big Pharma, and all references to those sources scrubbed from the Wiki and the search engines. Some of these individuals still fight on using pay to play professional blog-sites.

The question in my mind is “If these people (the whistle blowers) are telling lies about the system, some of them for over 20 years, then why are they not locked up or sued out of existence in civil court?” Serious libel laws exist in all the jurisdictions where they operate.

The usual suspects, about whom these whistle blowers are writing are making billions of dollars annually on this model and spending literally 100’s of millions suppressing studies and data and anyone who objects for any reason. What might be going on? The perpetrators are not helpless victims of an online campaign, quite the contrary.

We subscribe to this blog site:

Dr. Michael Kendrick  and his latest post is of interest to anyone whose doctor is recommending them to start treatment with Statins for “High Cholesterol”.

And here is just a fun CBC site about what is fiction and what is reality and how the two seem to be merging …:

I believe that everyone has to make up their own minds about what to believe and how happy they are with their physical health status quo and folks also have to make up their own minds about the reliability and trustworthiness of established academic organizations (researchers) healthcare organizations (NGO’s and departments) and government agencies (like Canada Health & The Canada Food Guide people).

But we need good data to be able to do this. I guess the bottom line is the reliability of the authorities we accept, which range from chance conversations in the coffee-shop or the supermarket all the way up to major double blind multinational studies and research efforts. We need to think about our sources.

If you are completely happy with your current health, and you sincerely believe that the above mentioned organizations and authorities are truly interested only in our well-being, then don’t worry, be happy. After all, in the log run we are all dead anyway no matter what decisions we make. Personally I would like the run to be as long as possible.

And for the rest of us, carry on … after all, its our lives that are on the line.
Cheers
Joe

The Greatest Generation

Sometimes doing what needs doing takes courage and determination, and a willingness to go in harms way for others.

If anyone is interested, the following snippet is relevant but more detailed than casual reading might warrant …

 

**** the following is from the Lancet Article****

 

The following is the fine print Conflicts of Interest Statement from the Lancet paper: Author’s initials in bold capitals here: RO’C, EB, IF, CW, and JS have nothing to disclose. (but)  JF, BM, CR, JE, LB, MK, AT, PR, CP,EL, WK, AG, SY, RC, CB, AK and LB do report significant conflict of interests.

In legal proceedings such conflicts would be such that a lawyer or a judge would have to recuse themselves from cases involving parties in those conflicts. Apparently this sort of conflict of interest is just OK with patient health departments and drug companies.

Commercial organisations in bold below. This is the same paper used as the reason for the firestorm witch hunt of Statin Whistle Blowers in the media and from government sources. Where did the 8000 lives saved come from??????? not clear anywhere … This isn’t really rocket “science”.

Again, this Conflicts of Interest Statement from the Lancet article upon which the firestorm of righteous indignation about putting patient lives at risk and saving 8000 lives, and … well anyway, you get my drift:

*****

Commercial organisations in bold

RO’C, EB, IF, CW, and JS have nothing to disclose. JF reports personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; and non-financial support from Amgen, Bayer, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. BM reports grants from the Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre during the conduct of the study, and grants from Merck outside the submitted work. CR report grants from the Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study; and grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. JE reports grants from the Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study, and a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. LB reports grants from the Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study. MK is an employee of a company that has received study grants and consulting fees from manufacturers of PCSK9 inhibitors and treatments for lipid disorders, outside the submitted work. AT reports personal fees from Amgen and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. PR reports a research grant from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and research grants from Novartis, Pfizer, and Kowa, outside the submitted work. CP reports a grant from Merck, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. EL reports grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, and Merck, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. WK reports grants and non-financial support from Roche, Beckmann, Singulex, and Abbott, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, The Medicines Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Dalcor, Sanofi, Berlin-Chemie, Kowa, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. AG reports personal fees from Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Arisaph Pharmaceuticals, DuPont, Esperion Therapeutics, Kowa, Merck, Roche, Vatera Capital, ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Weill Cornell Medicine, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. SY reports a grant from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. RC reports support from the Nuffield Department of Population Health, during the conduct of the study; grants from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Merck, National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work; personal fees from the British Heart Foundation and UK Biobank, outside the submitted work; other support from Pfizer to the Nuffield Department of Population Health (prize for independent research); and a patent for a statin-related myopathy genetic test licensed to University of Oxford from Boston Heart Diagnostics (RC has waived any personal reward). CB reports grants from the Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, during the conduct of the study; and grants from Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. AK reports grants from Abbott and Mylan, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Mylan, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. LB reports grants from UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study.

*****

Standard